M.Vedamurthy v. The Government Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P. No.33694 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.37806 of 2025 M. Vedamurthy Petitioner vs.

1.

The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Housing & Urban Development Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 The Chairman or Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board Complex Nandanam Chennai - 600 035 The Secretary and Administrative Officer I Floor, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Commercial Complex Chennai - 600 040 4.

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore

Chennai 600 008 5.

K. Sakthivel, B.Com.

Manager - Marketing & Service Chennai 600 101 6.

J. Lin Constructions represented by its Proprietor D.I. Peter Jebasingh No.64, Perambur Barracks Road Purasaiwakkam Chennai 600 007 Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3,5 and 6 not to proceed with the proposed compound wall construction in the Padikuppam public road in Survey No.251/1, T.S. No.50, Block No.70, Ward No.1, Padikuppam Village, Padikuppam Main Road, Thirumangalam, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai District 600 040.

For petitioner Ms. Sudharshana Sunder for Mr.B. Ravi Raja

ORDER

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) After some arguments by Ms. Sudharshana Sunder, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. B. Ravi Raja, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.B. Ravi Raja sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned main

'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] and captioned 'writ miscellaneous petition' [hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity] thereat but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner to come back to this Court on the same issue with a fresh writ petition, after making necessary averments as regards how the writ petitioner is affected by the construction of a compound wall by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Such a course had to be adopted as the writ petitioner has not made any averment in the instant writ affidavit regarding how the writ petitioner is affected. Scanned reproduction of the endorsement made by learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in the case file is as follows:

Request acceded to.

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP and captioned WMP thereat stand disposed of as withdrawn/closed, albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S., J.) (M.S.K., J.) 08.09.2025 cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No Note to Office: Upload forthwith

To 1.

The Secretary Housing & Urban Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 The Chairman or Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board Complex Nandanam Chennai 600 035 The Secretary and Administrative Officer I Floor, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Commercial Complex Chennai 600 040 4.

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai 600 008 5.

K. Sakthivel, B.Com.

Manager - Marketing & Service Chennai 600 101

M. SUNDAR, J.

and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

cad 08.09.2025